By my humble opinion..There are 6 GREAT bands of all time

TK31831

7777 wrote:

TK31831 wrote:

'Great' is very difficult to define and these are not necessarily my favorite bands but these bands have been around for a long time and continue to be loved by so many... here goes..

Led Zeppelin
The Rolling Stones
The Beatles
U2
Grateful Dead
Pearl Jam

And by looking at this list, I think it's fair to say that Pearl Jam is the greatest American Rock Band of all time..

Nice list. Even though I don't enjoy every band on it.

Yeah, I hear ya on U2 but thought they deserve to be included as theyre prob the biggest band of past 2 decades

KateA

No mention of Mark Knopfler / Dire Straits?

SVRDhand13

I'm still trying to get over someone saying The Beatles aren't relevant anymore :? :crazy: :shock: :wtf:

DewieCox

KateA wrote:

No mention of Mark Knopfler / Dire Straits?

Really? Some good songs no doubt, but do they really belong in the discussion of all time great bands? I bought the album with Sultans of Swing years ago and Sultans was about the only listenable track.

DewieCox

SVRDhand13 wrote:

I'm still trying to get over someone saying The Beatles aren't relevant anymore :? :crazy: :shock: :wtf:

Just accept the fact that there are people that know absolutely nothing about the history of popular music and you'll be ok.

brianlux

DewieCox wrote:

KateA wrote:

No mention of Mark Knopfler / Dire Straits?

Really? Some good songs no doubt, but do they really belong in the discussion of all time great bands? I bought the album with Sultans of Swing years ago and Sultans was about the only listenable track.

Yeah a couple of great songs- "Sultans of Swing" is killer. But these guys were fairly short lived and killed off some of their potential and a lot of their credibility with homophobic tendencies.

Hugh Freaking Dillon

TK31831 wrote:

'Great' is very difficult to define and these are not necessarily my favorite bands but these bands have been around for a long time and continue to be loved by so many... here goes..

Led Zeppelin
The Rolling Stones
The Beatles
U2
Grateful Dead
Pearl Jam

And by looking at this list, I think it's fair to say that Pearl Jam is the greatest American Rock Band of all time..

Pearl Jam is ONE of my favourite bands, but these other 5 I can take or leave to be honest with you.

Hugh Freaking Dillon

DewieCox wrote:

SVRDhand13 wrote:

I'm still trying to get over someone saying The Beatles aren't relevant anymore :? :crazy: :shock: :wtf:

Just accept the fact that there are people that know absolutely nothing about the history of popular music and you'll be ok.

I don't even know what "not relevant anymore" means (I find that to be a very strange thing to call a band). However, I was only ever a fan of the Beatles because that's all I heard growing up, them and the Guess Who. But honestly, I'm not a big fan of any of the Beatles stuff. The early stuff was just fluffy pop. The rest was just drug induced nonsense put to music. Yeah, sometimes it's cool to listen to when sitting around That 70's Show style, but just casual listening? I've never found myself doing that with any Beatles stuff. I don't even own any Beatles stuff. I have Lennon's Imagine on vinyl because my dad gave it to me, but that's it.

pjtaper

Widespread Motherfuckin Panic!!!!! Many more, but Panic needs to be mentioned IMMEDIATELY!!!!!!!

JAustinMarshall

If we are talking about "GOAT" in the sense of defining rock n' roll, I'd have to say (in no order):

1) Led Zeppelin
2) The Beatles
3) The Who
4) Black Sabbath
5) The Rolling Stones
6) Jimi Hendrix Experience

DewieCox

Hugh Freaking Dillon wrote:

DewieCox wrote:

SVRDhand13 wrote:

I'm still trying to get over someone saying The Beatles aren't relevant anymore :? :crazy: :shock: :wtf:

Just accept the fact that there are people that know absolutely nothing about the history of popular music and you'll be ok.

I don't even know what "not relevant anymore" means (I find that to be a very strange thing to call a band). However, I was only ever a fan of the Beatles because that's all I heard growing up, them and the Guess Who. But honestly, I'm not a big fan of any of the Beatles stuff. The early stuff was just fluffy pop. The rest was just drug induced nonsense put to music. Yeah, sometimes it's cool to listen to when sitting around That 70's Show style, but just casual listening? I've never found myself doing that with any Beatles stuff. I don't even own any Beatles stuff. I have Lennon's Imagine on vinyl because my dad gave it to me, but that's it.

I think the term relevant means that they continue to inspire and influence from an artistic standpoint and/or still maintain a high level of commercial success.

I can hear some "nonsense" at times in the later albums(doesn't mean I don't enjoy it), but the majority of their later years is still some finely crafted music. To dismiss it as nonsense shows an ignorance for that era at the very least. Still great songwriting.

I think the fact that one person has dismissed the Beatles as kid music and another as drug induced nonsense speaks volumes about misconceptions with the Beatles music from 2 people that don't listen to them.

jumbojet

Hugh Freaking Dillon wrote:

DewieCox wrote:

SVRDhand13 wrote:

I'm still trying to get over someone saying The Beatles aren't relevant anymore :? :crazy: :shock: :wtf:

Just accept the fact that there are people that know absolutely nothing about the history of popular music and you'll be ok.

I don't even know what "not relevant anymore" means (I find that to be a very strange thing to call a band). However, I was only ever a fan of the Beatles because that's all I heard growing up, them and the Guess Who. But honestly, I'm not a big fan of any of the Beatles stuff. The early stuff was just fluffy pop. The rest was just drug induced nonsense put to music. Yeah, sometimes it's cool to listen to when sitting around That 70's Show style, but just casual listening? I've never found myself doing that with any Beatles stuff. I don't even own any Beatles stuff. I have Lennon's Imagine on vinyl because my dad gave it to me, but that's it.

Thank God, thank you so much. I was starting to feel like the kid who says "The king is naked".

Dirty Frankk

This can go on and on forever

where is frickin'

AC/DC

dwhite76

There are really only 2 great bands

#2. Pearl Jam

#1. Cap'n Geech and the Shrimp Shack Shooters

jumbojet

DewieCox wrote:

I think the term relevant means that they continue to inspire and influence from an artistic standpoint and/or still maintain a high level of commercial success.

To dismiss it as nonsense shows an ignorance for that era at the very least. Still great songwriting.

I think the fact that one person has dismissed the Beatles as kid music and another as drug induced nonsense speaks volumes about misconceptions with the Beatles music from 2 people that don't listen to them.

I was trying to let this issue die but it continues to come up so I'd rather make myself clear. For the record, I have a good knowledge of Beatles catalog. And I share the love and respect for the band.

1-) Just because someone is a pioneer in one area and/or the best at it at some time in the past doesnt mean that you can label them one of the greatest at all times. This is true in every area of life. The inventor of mobile phones, whoever that company is, can be the pioneer in the area, still influencing the principles of production today but just doesnt produce the best mobile phones today.

2-) We as PJ fans should know better than assigning too much significance on commercial success. Commercial success might mean that the band sound was/is too much mainstream. Which, IMO, is absolutely the case for Beatles.

3-) Beatles might have been ahead of their time, in 1960's; and I respect this fact. But there are some bands from 60-70's like Led Zeppelin and Pink Floyd; who sound like they were not only ahead of their time but they are still way ahead today. This is also some feeling I get from Pearl Jam, that it is timeless. Beatles just doesnt give that feeling to me. The feeling Beatles gives me TODAY is (especially earlier albums); anyone who works on guitar for a year, can write these songs.

4-) Labeling Beatles as kid music is not something I come up with. Just type the words in youtube "Beatles for kids" and "Baby relaxing music, Beatles" and there is too much source on this. I know well because I use them sometimes to put my 3-month old to sleep. And this is not a matter of slow or fast songs. It is just the structure and production of the songs (mostly of earlier times), which are too simple for my taste in today's music.

Dollar

TK31831 wrote:

'Great' is very difficult to define and these are not necessarily my favorite bands but these bands have been around for a long time and continue to be loved by so many... here goes..

Led Zeppelin
The Rolling Stones
The Beatles
U2
Grateful Dead
Pearl Jam

And by looking at this list, I think it's fair to say that Pearl Jam is the greatest American Rock Band of all time..

IMHO, any list that doesn't have Bruce Springsteen & The E Street Band is incomplete. His body of work & legendary live performances are equal to anyone on the above list!

jumbojet

KateA wrote:

No mention of Mark Knopfler / Dire Straits?

They rocked our world in 80's but their catalog is too little to be considered in Greatests Bands. Brothers in Arms is a fantastic album.

PJStatTracker

jumbojet wrote:

I was trying to let this issue die but it continues to come up so I'd rather make myself clear. For the record, I have a good knowledge of Beatles catalog. And I share the love and respect for the band.

1-) Just because someone is a pioneer in one area and/or the best at it at some time in the past doesnt mean that you can label them one of the greatest at all times. This is true in every area of life. The inventor of mobile phones, whoever that company is, can be the pioneer in the area, still influencing the principles of production today but just doesnt produce the best mobile phones today.

2-) We as PJ fans should know better than assigning too much significance on commercial success. Commercial success might mean that the band sound was/is too much mainstream. Which, IMO, is absolutely the case for Beatles.

3-) Beatles might have been ahead of their time, in 1960's; and I respect this fact. But there are some bands from 60-70's like Led Zeppelin and Pink Floyd; who sound like they were not only ahead of their time but they are still way ahead today. This is also some feeling I get from Pearl Jam, that it is timeless. Beatles just doesnt give that feeling to me. The feeling Beatles gives me TODAY is (especially earlier albums); anyone who works on guitar for a year, can write these songs.

4-) Labeling Beatles as kid music is not something I come up with. Just type the words in youtube "Beatles for kids" and "Baby relaxing music, Beatles" and there is too much source on this. I know well because I use them sometimes to put my 3-month old to sleep. And this is not a matter of slow or fast songs. It is just the structure and production of the songs (mostly of earlier times), which are too simple for my taste in today's music.

When we are talking about relevance, most of the points just don't really matter. Whether or not you think they sound dated, are too mainstream, are too accessible to children, etc. These are all just your personal preferences and are meaningless in this conversation.

But you do bring up several points that do show how they are still hugely relevant. You are intimately familiar with a large portion of their catalog, despite your personal preferences. The Beatles are also cross-generational...the fact that both kids and adults can connect to their music is part of what continues to make them relevant in 2013. Case in point - by playing them for your kids as they grow from infancy you are already giving them a base of musical knowledge that begins with The Beatles. To me that equals relevance.

But if you'd like to use PJ to put your kids to sleep, they make plenty of baby versions of that too:

http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_ss_i_ ... %20lullaby

DewieCox

jumbojet wrote:

1-) Just because someone is a pioneer in one area and/or the best at it at some time in the past doesnt mean that you can label them one of the greatest at all times. This is true in every area of life. The inventor of mobile phones, whoever that company is, can be the pioneer in the area, still influencing the principles of production today but just doesnt produce the best mobile phones today.

2-) We as PJ fans should know better than assigning too much significance on commercial success. Commercial success might mean that the band sound was/is too much mainstream. Which, IMO, is absolutely the case for Beatles.

3-) Beatles might have been ahead of their time, in 1960's; and I respect this fact. But there are some bands from 60-70's like Led Zeppelin and Pink Floyd; who sound like they were not only ahead of their time but they are still way ahead today. This is also some feeling I get from Pearl Jam, that it is timeless. Beatles just doesnt give that feeling to me. The feeling Beatles gives me TODAY is (especially earlier albums); anyone who works on guitar for a year, can write these songs.

4-) Labeling Beatles as kid music is not something I come up with. Just type the words in youtube "Beatles for kids" and "Baby relaxing music, Beatles" and there is too much source on this. I know well because I use them sometimes to put my 3-month old to sleep. And this is not a matter of slow or fast songs. It is just the structure and production of the songs (mostly of earlier times), which are too simple for my taste in today's music.

1) You're right. I can think of plenty of pioneers of popular music that have fallen by the wayside that are no longer really relevant. That's not the case with all of them and it certainly doesn't ring true for the Beatles.

2) Nobody has said how much importance they put in commercial success, but you'd be foolish to think that the number of people that hear and album or sees a band in concert has an effect on their relevance. What the hell does "too mainstream" mean? You can't tear down the Beatles for being too mainstream and then elevate Zeppelin and Floyd.

3) I guess that's your opinion, but again, that mostly comes back to the production values possible then. Led Zeppelin and Pink Floyd wouldn't sound as modern without some of the things the Beatles were able to do in the studio. Only on a PJ message board are you gonna get such an insane statement as "PJ's music is more timeless than the Beatles". The Beatles have proven to be timeless for 50 years, PJ has already remixed an album for sounding too dated.

4) As another poster pointed out, that just speaks to their strength. I don't think the special baby editions are even necessary. People of all ages love The Beatles. The fact that there have been so many people put out baby versions shows how relevant they are. People are jumping in trying to make a back, b/c they know how people love the Beatles. Besides that, there are these baby version of practically every popular band out there.

KateA

DewieCox wrote:

KateA wrote:

No mention of Mark Knopfler / Dire Straits?

Really? Some good songs no doubt, but do they really belong in the discussion of all time great bands? I bought the album with Sultans of Swing years ago and Sultans was about the only listenable track.

Personally my two favs albums are "Love over Gold" and "Brothers in Arms". Plenty of great tracks in there.
I agree that 15 years seem short if you compare them to PJ
I would not place them in the top 6 myself too, but I think they deserve a mention. To me they are like butterfly of rock: short-lived but flipping beautiful.
Besides as there was some talk of great guitarists, Mark Knopfler surely deserves a spot there and he is amazing lyricist too.
As a curiosity:
There is a Top 100 of Greatest Songs of All Time run for years now on polish radio (public vote) and here are the results for the 1st place over the last 20 years:
- Led Zeppelin x 8
- Dire Straits x 7
- Pink Floyd x 2
- Queen x 2
- U2 x1

I also wonder what you think guys of King Crimson? Definitely long-lived and influential?
Nice discussion by the way. :corn: